Here there be rants. There will be Freeman stuff, Lawful Rebellion stuff and Random stuff. I am rebelling because I want my country back. My lawful obligations are as follows: “together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit…”
Article 61 Magna Carta 1215

October 13, 2011

Still Not Convinced?

I thought you would like to see an email I received this morning.

Look:

"I saw an interesting letter in the Portman Papers (Jan 99) about the status of the Queen vis a vis the C of E and Sovereignty. I think I can shed some light on the matter.

At the time just before the last (in both senses) election, I became very concerned about the Queen in Parliament no longer being 'Sovereign under God'. I was also very concerned about the fact that, as a clergyman in the Established Church, I have been required to take the Oath of Allegiance. I asked the question: "to whom do I owe this allegiance?" Not being very legally minded I put this matter initially to our Diocesan chancellor. He has no idea and so consulted the Registrar in Westminster. A day or so later he phoned me back with the following (verbal) reply, which I will now relay as accurately as I can.

"The question has been asked recently by someone else. The Registrar therefore consulted Buckingham Palace concerning the Oath. The Palace consulted Brussels, who replied that the Oath could stand as it was for the present."

After that I had to take the mental equivalent of a stiff brandy! The implication is quite clear: the Queen is a vassal of Brussels (or why consult them?) and those who have taken this Oath (such as the Police, MPs, Judges, Armed Forces, etc.) are liable to have this Oath called in by Brussels when it suits them. May God have mercy on us!

Philip Foster MA February 1999."

Now, are any of you still in any doubt that your monarch kow-tows to Brussels? Do any of you still disbelieve the evidence that your monarch has violated her oath to you?

Maybe this will make you realise why Cameron will never give us that referendum on Europe. Maybe this is why the monarch has wilfully ignored the 800,000 good men and women of Britain who have sent her their affidavits.

Maybe, just maybe, you will now all see that Lawful Rebellion is the only (peaceful) tool left in the box.

The monarch reigns at our pleasure. We gave her the Sovereignty she wields. We trusted her to defend us from foreign powers. Through her we give power to the MPs, to the armed forces, to the police service, to UKBA, HMRC and all the others. But here we discover that the "boss" is no longer the boss. She now reports to that unelected bunch of misfits and no-hopers in Brussels. In turn, that means that every single agent of the government also reports to the same power-hungry freaks in Brussels.

Is that what you want? Were you ever told that being "governed by consent" meant that you agreed absolutely with every shady deal the elected MPs signed up to? Was it explained to you in any of the queens speeches that she would one day hand our nation over to the EU?

Many people see the royals as remote, perhaps inbred, or worse, they think they are just ornamental. They may be all of those things but they (or she, at least) is meant to be an integral part of our tripartite system of rule. This new material clearly states that she is subservient to Brussels. So we don't really need her anymore. The MPs we need even less. Over 80% of new legislation comes from Brussels so we should at least reduce the number of "lawmakers" by 80% or reduce their salaries by 80%. I don't care which.

With an irrelevant monarch, and unrequired MPs, why don't we all just bow to Brussels.

38 comments:

However, I still think that the quickest way to "turn the world upside down" is to vote UKIP... (whether one does this with a noe peg on... is up to them)...

They have a full set of policies and always have had, which might come as a surprise to many who are led by the MSM and some of the anti-UKIP blogs.

Of course the most important of those policies are:

1: Immediate withdrawal from the EU, using the 1689? act (I think)... No government shall be bound etc.

2: Introduction of direct democracy...

" Introduce ‘Direct Democracy’ whereby 5% of the national or local electorate can demand a binding referendum on any issue. At national level, people will have to sign up for the referendum within six months, at local level, within three months."

There is no need for a referendum on our membership, we just leave.

The whole point about "lawful rebellion" is that ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN... Turning the world upside down is precisely what is needed to return sovereignty to the individual.

P.S. This could also explain all the faffing about, concerning the next monarch. A lot easier to have a coronation, with televised EU friendly oaths, once all the dirty deeds have been done and settled... the twisting bastards.

Never have any relevance to me anyway. I could never quite understand the whole switching allegiance to barons from the Queen when sending affidavits to her.

As I see it the royals became royals by either being the meanest bunch of arseholes in the land and that's how they rose to the top or they were the wisest of the wise and everyone revered them. I suspect the former judging by our brutal history.

Therefore she (and the barons) are nobody to me who really cares what she did or didn't do regarding the oath?

All law is contract, nobody is above me, deal with all of these things from a trust/contract perspective. I just can't see the point of exposing the Queen's oath flaws.

Revoking and re-swearing allegiance keeps us in honour. I know that is just a meaningless word to most, but in law, remaining in honour is paramount.

The Barons are now the leading authority in the country. They are loftier than the monarch, the govt and all below them.

Caring about her oath violations is the key to everything. Well, maybe not caring exactly, but noticing, and doing something about it puts you in a higher place automatically.

I also know that all law is contract. But the problem we have-and I mean all of us-is that the govt, the monarch, the judiciary and the police-assume that we are signatories, whether expressed or implied.

We have to tell them-somehow-that we have walked away. That their side breached the contract and it is no longer valid.

CR,I agree that you absolutely must remain in honour in your contracts, but where is the contract?

And as I thought you knew, as a freeman/sovereign no man, and certainly no corporation, has authority over you - wouldn't you agree? This is probably the point I was trying to make initially - no man has authority over me and therefore I pledge allegiance to no man.

You can tell the gov/courts/etc as and when you interact with them. I don't believe there is any need to tell them anything unless you choose to.

Corporations can't rebut your affidavits as they can't deal with the man and HRH won't/can't because they are the truth - so what is the point? That is not meant as a defeatist rhetorical question, just deal with these parasites as you need to.

Sometimes, it isn't what I know that matters. The hardest part of this trek is getting THEM to know what I know.

And of course I agree that no-one has authority over me, BUT, I am using LR as a tool. In order for it to mean anything I need to recognise and empower the Barons Committee. Since we are both fighting the same menace, I swallowed my pride and swore my allegiance to them.

Your last point is spot on. And I have said as much in several posts over the last couple of years: no paperwork is needed (by you) but the PTB runs on paper so I find it handy to have. They adore bits of paper with signatures on. I have lots of those. I firmly believe I am using their system against them.

"Voting, even for Nige and his party, who I like very much, is a waste of our time."

It only takes a couple of minutes!!!

As I said, I am interested in the lawful rebellion thing, it makes a lot of sense... But can you seriously tell me CR that dealing with your speeding ticket the LR way, even if you are vindicated, will take less time, than voting?

The point I make about UKIP is that they are actually in opposition to those crims that currently infest the halls of power. They are sworn enemies, maybe they have limited horizons as Richard North (who hates them) put it, but it IS an obvious tack to take, ALONG with all the other stuff.

To go on (rant... as it were)... There may well be 400,000 LR's out of C20,000,000 voters, of which around 12,000,000 actually vote, and most of those don't want to know anything about politics...

"They're all the same"...

It used to be the case that the MSM and the OBC could get away with saying that Farage's mob was just the BNP in blazers, it was even OK for Cameron to say something of the sort...

But now even those that are totally bored by politics, but still vote are questioning the honesty of the MSM and the LibLabCON, they are looking for an alternative... but only if it doesn't take more than a couple of minutes.

Those people haven't got the time to be LR's, the Xbox, Celebrity Farting, Big Mother or whatever its called is on telly in a minute... And they've just got home from a hard day at the call centre, or the cash till... or whatever is left for them to do in this dump, we call home.

I seriously doubt that UKIP say anywhere in their Manifesto that they will repeal all statutes, particularly the lucrative ones, like speeding and parking fines.

Hell, if they did, I am fairly sure they would win every seat in the HoC.

I agree that UKIP are the only threat to the Big Three set of wallies. Last time around, there was no UKIP candidate standing. I would have voted for him/her even though a vote for anyone else around here is wasted. The SNP are thicker than fleas on a mangy dog in these here parts.

I am reasonably certain they could win by a massive majority without even campaigning.

Some people need reminding, so I am going to do it now.The definition of madness Is:’ to do the same thing, over and over again, expecting different results.’

For those that think voting is going to change anything have their head on all wrong. No slant to those who have stated such here, we ARE on the same side. BUT I really do believe that it doesn't matter who one votes for, the government ALWAYS gets in.

Don't get me wrong UKIP is great and I agree with what they say; however they are 'ONLY' saying it. Nothing concrete has come of it yet, will it ever? I don't know but they talk a lot of talk but produce NOTHING.I may be wrong, so PUT ME right if I am.

What we need to do 'RIGHT NOW' is RETRACT everything we have and MAKE them do something before we do anything else. If they do nothing we give them nothing.This in a way will FORCE the PTB to ACT and then get reward - NOT the other way round.

We do NOT need a government we need an administrator who is acting behalf of and for the people.

CR - Brother I am with you my friend - THE QUEEN IS DEAD long live 'WE THE PEOPLE'

By the way anyone who is having problems with the tax credits drop me a line I / we need to get something out to the HMR&C to put them on the back foot and we need to do it in unison.

drphil at nerdshack dot c o m. obviously no time wasters.The time is coming and we have to organise, when a RAT is cornered it attacks with all it has - for the last time I might add.

"I seriously doubt that UKIP say anywhere in their Manifesto that they will repeal all statutes, particularly the lucrative ones, like speeding and parking fines."

I refer you to my previous comment copied from their manifesto (and it has been there since 1995 at least)...

" Introduce ‘Direct Democracy’ whereby 5% of the national or local electorate can demand a binding referendum on any issue. At national level, people will have to sign up for the referendum within six months, at local level, within three months."

"The definition of madness Is:’ to do the same thing, over and over again, expecting different results.’"

That may be the case, but let me remind you that the reason (apart from his total shitness of course) that Cameron has ended up in his cosy little relationship with Clegg, is because UKIP deprived him of an outright majority...

Based on past experience of Tory majority governments... Heath... Major... Thatcher... if Cameron had managed a clear maj, we would be further into the merde than we are now...

Not because Clegg is in any way good, but beacause the two opposing ego's/cliches tend to cancel each other out.

So anyway, UKIP managed to (with an incoherent leader (big mistake)) double their vote, and kept the Tory's out... They were standing at less than three percent in the polls just before the election... At this stage in the cycle (2006) they were at one percent...

They currently stand at eight percent and fifteen percent amongst the 18-30 year olds.

So, I think your aphorism, if at all true, does not hold in this case.

However, in every place where a referendum on the hanging issue has been deliberated, the people have eventually come down against it. It's fairly easy to mimic a London cabbie with the statement that "'angin's too good for em..", but actually voting for it, is another matter.

As for unfair charges for parking, parking violations, speeding violations and any other of those spurious fees that are fattening the average local council CEO's wage packet, I think that the debate might well be far more clear cut.

right_writes,Like I say do the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

A coalition is NO accident, look back at the LAST one. YES! The last one, that was NO accident either.I am not saying UKIP does not have any good ideas but then neither did Wilson, Heath, Foot, Major, Thatcher, Bl(iar), Brown and Cameron.Did I miss any?They ALL without exception pulled the wool my friend, there is NO denying that.CR, I like Nige too. BUT it still doesn't mean anything has been done yet, it has taken a world full of people who have had enough and still they ignore us.Now 'THAT' is bloody frustrating.

Namaste, Rev: I like your enthusiasm rite_writes but we have been here before and I for one have said enough is enough. My children are getting to the age where it really does matter.

"But the problem we have-and I mean all of us-is that the govt, the monarch, the judiciary and the police-assume that we are signatories, whether expressed or implied. "We have to tell them-somehow-that we have walked away. That their side breached the contract and it is no longer valid."

On this point - as consent can be obtained explicitly or implicitly (ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle: "He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly"; qui tacet consentire videtur: “he who is silent appears to consent”), logically it must follow that it can be revoked explicitly or implicitly.

LR would seem to be an explicit revocation of all prior consent (explicit or implicit) by what is in essence a process of rescission & disaffirmation. As to whether it is the “right way”, or whether the form it takes is "correct" - well, if it is, even slightly, TPTB won’t want it to be shown to be – "Case dismissed, now fuck off" I believe you put it, CR, or words to that effect.

Equally, saying a) who-the-fuck are you and b) where-the-fuck is the contract may be as valid and requires no paperwork, although it does not utilise the abrogative “certified” aspects of LR. Yet any method of challenging their presumptions is worth looking into.

An implicit revocation would be both valid as well as honourable (as the initial consent was obtained unlawfully via fraud and deception):- Non refert verbis an factis fit revocatio: "It does not matter whether a revocation is made by words or by acts". - Contractus ex turpi caus, vel contr bonos mores nullus est: "A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null". - Quod inconsulto fecimus, consultius revocemus: “What is done without consideration or reflection, upon better consideration we should revoke or undo”.

If a contract does exist there was no full disclosure and due consideration, was there? And in order to reflect upon it, for “better consideration”, we would need to see it, wouldn’t we? And if it doesn’t exist… ;-)

I am rather impressed by the figures, be they 400k or 800k or whatever. It is not out of the realms of possibility to think that for each one who’s done it there’s maybe another one or two that are thinking about it or researching it or just encountering the idea, etc. Moreover, those looking into LR & FMOTL stuff are, I would imagine, a minority of those who have turned/are turning away from establishment/MSM indoctrination and propaganda.

And Heath was an unremitting fucktard long before he became a treasonous cunt...

I think you are being too generous. I used to give them the benefit of doubt but the viewing figures for shite programmes on the telly speak for themselves. On the face of it, a remarkably intelligent man or woman. Yet when 8pm swings round, all cleverness deserts them while they sit, transfixed in front of the X Factor or The Apprentice, or when some minor sleb dies, they go into paroxysms of grief.

Add to that 50 years of dumbing down (in the press) as well as in our schools and you have a supine herd. Ready for a lifetime of saying yes, ignoring herds of elephants in their front rooms, and 60 years of paying taxes.

My own research tells me that no-one knows what and who the Queen is. The Lisbon Treaty was rushed and it was a patch up job after to explain away the monarchy. A shamble and thats why we don't understand it cos they don't.

I am certain that all Queenie did was create a new public trust to represent her as an EU citizen. Thats all she and the monarchy are....trusts. They make em and break em as suits and us poor fucking peasants haven't a clue.....till now.

My point is that we are supposed to have a system of government involving Madge, the HoC and the HoL.

Oh, yes, I understand that, Cap'n, but of course it's failed. And not only has it failed on Liz's watch because she's allowed her government to hand powers to an unelected body abroad, but it's also because she's put her sig on all sorts of other egregious legislation. I do think she's really only been interested in preserving the House of Windsor, and screw the oath.

And there's the problem with monarchy as that third leg of government - you get an elected head of state doing a lousy job and you only have to put up with it for a few years before you get a chance to get rid of them. A monarch has a habit of sticking around for decades - Diamond Jubilee year next year, isn't it - and passing on the tradition of not rocking the boat and letting the government get away with murder to the next in line. People talk about the cost of a Presidency being up there with the cost of monarchy, but only in pounds and pence. They're not thinking about the non-monetary cost of having some daft bat sitting there for sixty years rubber stamping the export and destruction of her citizens' liberties.

Unfortunately I think a majority of Britons are as keen on the Queen and keeping monarchy as they are to bring back hanging and won't buck until it's too late.

PS Sorry my republican rant is slightly tangential to the subject of your post but there's a button in my head marked "Bloody Monarchy" that sets it off, and any discussion of Mrs Queen and whether she's lived up to her oath or performed the only real service the monarch can for British citizens tends to press it. Apologies all, don't mind me. Carry on while I rant in a corner and demand another referendum on an Aussie republic. :-)

You are most welcome Captain; I always hope that lex semper dabit remedium, "the law always provides a remedy" - law, not "legals"... At least things like that may provide another possibility.

Don't think that your effort and energy have gone to waste!

There are often slight variations here and there. For example the one about being against good morals can also be written thus (emboldened):

Contractus ex turpi causa est, tel contra bonos mores nullus est"

Sir Edward Coke referred to them as "A sure foundation or ground of art and a conclusion of reason so called quia maxima est eius dignitas & certissima authoritas, atque quod maxime omnibus probetur, so sure and uncontrollable as that they ought not to be questioned"...

I believe there is no reason for them not to be used in correspondence... :-D

Great post Cap'n!and brilliant comments from all, special thanks to anon for the quotes!I believe Bollixed may well be right in chasing down the trust angle in the way he is doing, everything appears to be written in and under trust law terms..it could well prove the key to the mess!UKIP?, as I mentioned in one of your past posts , I do not see that those in LR can actually vote any longer for anything but if they can then I would give my vote to them if they were represented round here (which they are not).The FOI to find out the real number of LR's is a good idea but...my affidavits do not mention the EU, so there may be at least two sets of LR affies to find out about, those going to the FO and those that stay with her Madge!

When I inquired about a Notary Public to witness my affidavits, the receptionist asked which country I would be sending them to. I said I would be sending them to Her Maj, she then said I wouldn't need a NP and that a solicitor/officer of the court would do. So maybe an FoI to the FO may give us answer.